Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

coondoggie writes "Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site. In an Associated Press story Zoeller's attorney, Scott Sheftall, said he filed a lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue Wikipedia."

He's suing the correct person for (if the accusations are true - and you've seen Wikipedia troll edits, they probably are) a legitimate reason. So the story is that he's not an idiot suing Wikipedia like the rest of the idiots would?

I think Slashdot wants the community to foam at the mouth about the *potential* breach of privacy Wikipedia could be involved in by revealing the poster (or, at least, revealing where the poster posted from). Of course, Slashdot is relying on the fact that most people won't RTFA and see that Wikipedia hasn't even been formerly notified by the lawyer brigade. Never mind that the IP is freely available on the Wikipedia page's history. So, in short: Slashdot wants Slashdotters to foam at the mouth so they g

I'd presume that's because people viewing the article can also go back and view historical versions, which would be continuing the publication of defamatory statements. I'm sure whoever did this will have kept an archived copy to be produced on demand.

As a Wikibook administratos I can tell you that the WikiMedia software never deletes anything - it is just hidden from the general public. If you have a legitimate reason to look at deleted entries you can ask an Administrator to make the data available to you.

s a Wikibook administratos I can tell you that the WikiMedia software never deletes anything - it is just hidden from the general public. If you have a legitimate reason to look at deleted entries you can ask an Administrator to make the data available to you.

Under Wiki's license shouldn't everything, including edits, be available to anyone? If not then you have a loophole that others can exploit to avoid complying with the license.

It's called Oversight [wikipedia.org]. Very few admins have this ability, and it's tightly regulated. I'm guessing the rationale for this case is Removal of potentially libellous information... when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

Wikipedia probably gets vandalized every minute of the day. In this case, it'd be relevant to know how long the offending paragraph existed in the article before being reverted. If another editor caught it and reverted it within a few hours, I hope the court would find this kind of lawsuit to be frivolous.
If The Wiggles [wikipedia.org] filed a lawsuit every time somebody posted how "gay" they were, they'd be rich. (Oh wait, they are. Rich, not gay).

The article actually links to answers.com's mirrored copy of the libel [answers.com], which makes for interesting reading. Without wishing to repeat the libelous allegation itself, it essentially comprises of Zoeller supposedly confessing to a large number of relatively unpleasant personality flaws and associated actions.

Given the way its presented, I can understand someone wanting compensation after reading that about themselves.

He's suing the correct person for (if the accusations are true - and you've seen Wikipedia troll edits, they probably are) a legitimate reason. So the story is that he's not an idiot suing Wikipedia like the rest of the idiots would?

Hmm. Someone tells lies about you that might damage your reputation or livelihood. You want them to stop. Do you

a.) send someone to break their kneecapsb.) smear shit all over their carc.) call them lies back and sleep with their sisterd.) follow the legal remedy that has been established for centuries and appeal for relief against the harmful action?

e) Say, "Meh. So what?" and go on to live a public life and create enough "good" evidence that would make such claims laughable?

Makes me wonder sometimes that maybe a bit of introspection after things such as this wouldn't be such a bad thing."You know, I am a bit of an ass sometimes. Maybe I should try to be a better person, so I don't have to sue all and sundry over the snarky comments they make."

Hmm. Someone tells lies about you that might damage your reputation or livelihood. You want them to stop. Do you

a.) send someone to break their kneecaps
b.) smear shit all over their car
c.) call them lies back and sleep with their sister
d.) follow the legal remedy that has been established for centuries and appeal for relief against the harmful action?

IANAL, but isn't the problem with the RIAA cases that the connection was unsecured wireless and thus open to abuse by countless neighbours and people just passing? Whereas in this case unless they can clearly demonstrate that the computer was hacked, or the connection abused, then there may be issues of liability related to the fact that the person who did it must have been an employee of the company?

He's suing the correct person for (if the accusations are true - and you've seen Wikipedia troll edits, they probably are) a legitimate reason. So the story is that he's not an idiot suing Wikipedia like the rest of the idiots would?

Errm, he's "doing the right thing" because the law won't allow him to sue Wikipedia. "Courts have clearly said you have to go after the source of the information," Sheftall said.

Doing the right thing because you can't do the wrong thing isn't really doing the right thing, is it?

The story is actually that someone's finally doing something to defuse, well, what Penny Arcade called the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com]. (Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.) There are a lot of people who did just that: took the supposed anonymity of the internet as just an oportunity to harrass, defame, cause grief, etc.

It can be a lot of damage even if you're not an "ImportantPerson(TM)", because we live in an age where bosses google their employees, neighbours google each other, and the village gossip googles the whole freakin' village for some gossip material. We're also in an age where people might glue posters to your door or drive you out of town because they found someone else by the same name rumoured to be a sex offender in some anonymous blog, or as was once the case because they were too stupid to know what "paeditrician" means. (It's a kind of doctor, not a paedophile.) We also live in an age of hypocrisy where someone might hold some rumour against you, not because they believe it, not because they are any better, but because it doesn't fit their bullshit PR corporate image.

So basically carpet bombing the internet, Wikipedia included, with bits of defamation like "JohnTurner admitted in 2007 that he was trying hard to overcome his kiddy porn addiction" or "JohnTurner said he stopped beating his wife nowadays" or "see JohnTurner's guide to surfing for porn undetected at work and using the corporate appserver as a warez site. Excellent reading." can cause a lot of harm even if you're not some celebrity.

E.g., the HR drone for your next job googles you, they don't have the time or the inclination to do a thorough checking. Most of what everyone does at all stages is actually looking for some excuse, any excuse, no matter how lame, to discard as many candidates as possible. It can be just because they didn't like your email provider, or it can be literally by numerology or tarot. (Don't laugh, it's not a joke, there _are_ companies which use numerology or tarot to thin out the candidates pool. Assign a number to each letter in your name, sum them up, sum the digits up until you get a single digit, see if it matches the sum for the company name. If not, your CV goes directly into the garbage bin.) The underlying assumption is that you're just yet another dime-a-dozen peon in a sea of perfectly replaceable and interchangeable peons. PHBs love that assumption. So noone's going to do a thorough checking just for you, see the context, see if such a guide to surfing for porn actually exists anywhere, etc. They'll just google until something bad comes up, then stop.

And it's maybe not a bad thing that someone is suing such a fuckwad and proving once again that anonymity isn't as granted as people think. Sure, noone will bother getting your name out of the ISP if you just posted on Slashdot during work hours, but if you take the step to actively harrass and defame someone, or break any other law, all that anonymity may well be harder to maintain than just being behind a modem. For a lot of people it might just take the essential component out of that greater internet fuckwad recipe. It may even be a good thing.

He did say the stuff about Tiger Woods, and he did apologize and withdraw from the US Open that year as a result. The rest was apparently made up by the vandal - some pretty vicious stuff about wife-beating, based on the copy that was linked. I don't blame him for suing.

BTW I remember his open apology to Woods which he read aloud at a press conference, and it was actually was very nicely done. 100 percent different from the half-hearted, ghostwritten-by-my-agent "apologies" we're accustomed to hearing from the likes of Tim Hardaway, Nick Saban, etc.

He did say the stuff about Tiger Woods, and he did apologize and withdraw from the US Open that year as a result. The rest was apparently made up by the vandal - some pretty vicious stuff about wife-beating, based on the copy that was linked. I don't blame him for suing.
BTW I remember his open apology to Woods which he read aloud at a press conference, and it was actually was very nicely done. 100 percent different from the half-hearted, ghostwritten-by-my-agent "apologies" we're accustomed to hearing fro

So if someone makes up defamatory things about Fuzzy, that person has opened himself up to punishment.

Only for what he's said, and no more. If someone thinks what he's said is bad, then they're entitled to dislike or hate him on the basis of that, but not on the basis of something he hasn't done.

Implying that it's valid for someone to throw false accusations at someone else because that person originally did or said something bad is the thin end of the wedge, and has massive potential to act as leverage for abuses of the justice system.

Jesus Christ, there is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to begin.

1. "Nigger" is an insult no matter who says it. Differentiating between different races like you're doing and assigning them different levels of free speech based on their color is extremely racist.

2. It is an insult, a worded personal attack. It causes no direct physical harm. It is as excusable as any other insult; moron, jackass, cracker, loser, etc.

3. There are sometimes people that deserve to be insulted. People generally acting like a complete jackass. For instance, a group of trolls who buy tickets to a Michael Richards show with the intent to heckle him the whole time, and then do just that.

4. Don't even begin to talk about people's "true feelings", because the only true feelings you know about are your own. Don't pretend to know how other people feel, and don't even try to judge somebody's feelings and personality based on one remark they make.

Oh man. During the leadup to the 2004 presidential election when Howard Dean was getting lots of press I noticed that he bore a striking resemblance to a Chicago-area lawyer that often had ads on TV named Peter Francis Geraci. So I put links to pictures of both in my AIM profile.At this time I was signed up for a website that auto-stalked my AIM profile/away messages, so that people could see an archive of them. So that went into the archive.

To repeat another poster: This guy isn't suing Wikipedia. He's suing someone who edited his Wikipedia page to include information that was allegedly defamatory.

As I see it, he's doing the right thing here. Mr. Zoeller's quarrel isn't with Wikipedia, its with the guy who edited his entry. That's the way that Mr. Zoeller is pursuing it. He's filing a "John Doe" lawsuit (the kind made famous by the RIAA) against the person associated with the IP address source of the edit.

yeah, but think about it- the guy's never sued Wikipedia in the past, therefore his lawsuit count against Wikipedia before this past six-month period is zero. Tripling the lawsuit count in this six month period is 3(0), which of course equals 0. The GP is quite valid:)
And I do agree that Mr. Zoeller is going about this lawsuit in the correct way- Wikipedia can't fully police all of their poster's comments, and the comments are the responsibilites of the posters.

As I see it, he's doing the right thing here. Mr. Zoeller's quarrel isn't with Wikipedia, its with the guy who edited his entry. That's the way that Mr. Zoeller is pursuing it. He's filing a "John Doe" lawsuit (the kind made famous by the RIAA) against the person associated with the IP address source of the edit.

I think the "right" thing to do here would be to say: "That guy is wrong, and an idiot, and that information is false." The RIAA's tactics are questionable at best, and Zoeller's critics are right

He didn't sue the law firm because he can't sue Wikipedia so much as he sued the origin of the IP address from which the edits came (which happened to be a law firm) rather than Wikipedia, because he was unlikely to win against Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, there are very few cases (none that I can think of) where you just can't sue (whether the suit survives a 12(b) motion to dismiss -- especially 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) -- is another issue entirely).

So he sues John Does since he doesn't know who the person is. Whats the point of bringing civil litigation against an unknown person? Can you actually go to court and win a case against an unknown person?

The fact that he can't sue wikipedia is definitely a problem, and a loophole in the current legal system. The "anything goes, we do what we want and fuck you" mentality of constructions like wikipedia should be eliminated. At the very least, they should be forced to permanently remove entries on people who do not want to have articles about them. The fact is, he should be suing both.

I don't buy the "free speech" argument. That much "freedom" is totalitarian. It leaves no choice for those at the receiving

Ironically, though, if you "post anonymously" on the Wikipedia, your IP address becomes public, so you're easier to track down.

It's much better to post using a user account, because while then your edits are tracked across IPs, the only people who can track you down are admins with what I think's called the "checkuser" privilege. Whatever it's called, it's the privilege to check a user's IP.

So remember, when trolling people on the Wikipedia, don't do it AC-style. Create a sockpuppet instead.

I would think it highly optimistic to think that Wikipedia can't be sued.

Even if there's an argument that Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation aren't responsible for the content - and I'm a bit skeptical about that - there will still be people who will launch suits just to get information removed.

Ultimately Wikipedia will either wind up caving to anyone who complains, or spending many, many thousands of dollars on lawyers defending themselves.

I would think it highly optimistic to think that Wikipedia can't be sued.

No. As I mentioned elsewhere under this story, Wikipedia can't be sued for libelous information put there by users, by virtue of the only good part of the CDA, 47 USC 230. No need to be skeptical about it; it's been applied numerous times in the decade or so it's been around, and it is very protective of people and service providers online who aren't the original sources of the information at issue. Look it up.

This sueing becuase he/she said bad things that you don't like seem wrong somehow, at the very list unnatural. I'm sure it seems like the civilized thing to do, however I just not comfortable with this litigation happy environment.

Well, if he wrote bad things about you and published them, that's libel, and its illegal. Under your system, I could put up a website or a Wikipedia entry saying all sorts of terrible things about you, and you'd be powerless to stop my assaults upon your character.

However, if I have reason to believe that the things I wrote were true, then I've got an exemption. This golfer could also be classified as a public figure (such as a politician or celebrity) which would change the rules some more.

Well, if he wrote bad things about you and published them, that's libel, and its illegal. Under your system, I could put up a website or a Wikipedia entry saying all sorts of terrible things about you, and you'd be powerless to stop my assaults upon your character.

I aggree, he's free to say what he wants, and I'm free to dislike him for it.

...whom my dad heard, on a nationally-televised golf game, when he missed a putt, say, "Goddamned fucking day!" under his breath. It's still a catch-phrase to us. So based on that criterion alone, I *like* Zoeller. Well, as much as one can like a golfer at all.;)

Later Zoeller went public with his alcoholism and prescription drug addiction, explaining that at the time he made those statements, he was "in the process of polishing off a fifth of Jack (Daniels) after popping a handful of vicodin pills". He further detailed the violent nature of his disease, recalling how he'd viciously beat his wife Dianne and their four children while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. He also admitted feigning a ruptured spinal disc in 1985 so as to be prescribed a multitude of prescription medication. [4]

He sought professional help and mended his fractured familial relationships. In May 2006, Zoeller said in an interview with Golf Digest magazine that he hadn't beaten his wife in nearly five years.

You gotta admit: if that paragraph isn't true, it is definitely libel by its defaming nature. Most people would be angry if this were in their own wikipedia entry. I know the Slashdot title is sensationalist, but in all honesty, I can see why he'd want to sue.

You gotta admit: if that paragraph isn't true, it is definitely libel by its defaming nature. Most people would be angry if this were in their own wikipedia entry. I know the Slashdot title is sensationalist, but in all honesty, I can see why he'd want to sue.

What the hell are you talking about. I would LOVE it if somebody put that in my wikipedia entry. 1) That would make me seem a lot cooler than I really am. Everybody knows that it's cool to drink alcohol and do drugs. 2) That would mean that somebody had actually taken notice of me to a level that they would feel the need to slander my name in public. If only I were so popular!

(Please note that the post above is a joke, so please take it like one:-P)

You gotta admit: if that paragraph isn't true, it is definitely libel by its defaming nature. Most people would be angry if this were in their own wikipedia entry. I know the Slashdot title is sensationalist, but in all honesty, I can see why he'd want to sue.

I can't. I can see why he would want that text removed though. Is a lawsuit the ONLY way to do that?

Beause guess what - now his Wikipedia entry will read "In Feb 2007, he sued to have this text removed from his Wikipedia entry: Later Zoeller went

Zoeller was libeled, and it appears that it was done by an employee at work. The company doesn't deserve to take the rap for this any more than Zoeller should have to put with it. The vandal should be identified for the record. Wikipedia has hidden the evidence, but some of it was captured before they did this. It is linked at the top of http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ [wikipedia-watch.org]

Maybe, but there's nothing that protects free speech. The First Amendment limits Congress -- not State legislatures (directly, anyway -- as applied, it limits them too) -- from making laws against certain kinds of speech. Making something illegal and letting someone get money from you when you're a j*****s are two different things.

First if it is something written it's libel, not defamation. Secondly, you're only allowed to do it if what you claim is actually true. If you're just making stuff up about someone then you're probably going to have to cough up.

Technically, yes. And you can't be criminally prosecuted for something of that nature, nor can it be restrained in advance. There is probably an exception for conspiracy to commit an actual crime. However, if you say something untrue that damages someone, you can be held liable for those damages. If the speech is printed, it's called libel; if spoken it is called slander.

In a nutshell, you can tell deliberate lies that hurt people's feelings, but you can't tell deliberate lies that cause them some kind of economic damage (in a rather wide sense,to be sure).

So, you can tell your friends that your roommate is a pathological liar, knowing it is false and will hurt his feelings. But you can't call up the company that he's interviewing with and say that without risking his coming after you for damages for slander. You can't tell your neighbor's wife that her husband is secretly HIV positive, becuase the law puts a value on things like conjugal relations.

There's all kinds of nuances and gray areas in defamation, but a starting point is that when you do deliberate harm to somebody, and it is harm of a nature that the law thinks can be reasonably balanced by moving a sum of money from your bank account to his, you are in trouble. The rest is just elaboration.

Another aspect of free speech is that while some forms of speech are punishable, in general there is a very strong bias under free speech against preventive measures. You can't sue somebody becuase they might defame you in the future (as far as I know). The government can't shut down your newspaper because you are just the sort of pinko who might publish state secrets. One way of thinking about this is that freedom doesn't necessarily mean freedom from consequences. This is why civil disobedience is important. If you want to punish somebody because he is going to break the law, you can simply disappear him. In a free society, you have wait until he is actually doing a crime, then you arrest him and as you try him publicly in a court of law, you are tried yourself in the court of public opinion. So the freedom to commit civil disobedience is an important freedom, one which is meaningless unless it results in a punishment.

They shouldn't be allowed to sue Wikipedia unless they are accusing Wikipedia of the damage itself. Providing a medium for someone else is not enough. Wikipedia setting up a website is like a paper company giving paper to a newspaper company. You sue the newspaper, not the paper company.The very fact that someone could have conceivably sued Wikipedia is the reason why I'm afraid to start a business in this country. I don't want to waste a day of my life in court because some idiot decided to sue me instead

It doesn't matter. The Communications Decency Act was a terrible law and most of it was struck down as being unconstitutional. But a portion of it is still in effect: 47 USC 230. It grants extremely broad protection for providers and users of computer systems who merely reprint information provided by another. Wikipedia itself didn't make this edit to the page, a user did. As a result, Wikipedia can't be sued for the damage to the plaintiff's reputation. He'll have to find the original source.

The very nature of publication rights these days means that your analogy is flawed.If a paper company gave paper to a newspaper company, told them to fill it up with whatever content they saw fit, and THEN published it without editorial input, then it'd be a fair comparison. Unfortunately, that only happens on the internet. The medium and the publication are synonymous, so the responsibility for the message isn't quite so clear-cut as it has been in the past.

They shouldn't be allowed to sue Wikipedia unless they are accusing Wikipedia of the damage itself.

You do know he is not suing Wikipedia [networkworld.com], right? He tracked the IP of the person who posted the allegedly libelous comments in Wikipedia to Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami law firm. He is suing them, probably hoping they will tell him which of their employees he should be suing instead.

Yeah, but, like a Briney Spears (and I like that typo so much I will leave it...hehe, Briney) fan site, it's user-generated content. Regardless of how important it claims to be, it's still user-generated.

This is an interesting quandary, though. Wikipedia is not really considered citeable in academic circles, and yet it's taken seriously enough for someone who posts there to be sued. Obviously different contexts, but still. I'd think that one could use Wikipedia's lack of academic credentials as a prot

if you cite encyclopedia britannica for anything other than a gradeschool paper you deserve an automatic F

no college professor i have ever heard of and very vew highschool and middle school teachers will accept an encyclopedia as a source.

btw wikipedia is actually more accountable than dead tree encyclopedias. in wikipedia you can track down who contributed a certain piece of information in an article and you can compare it to other information contributed by that person. in a dead tree volume you canno

Actually, his article has received the same fate as the article on elephants, and John Seigenthaler, and others that have been the target of media attention or coordinated vandalism: experienced Wikipedians swarm the article to defend it, and end up improving it significantly. This sort of thing has always proven good for the respective articles in particular and Wikipedia in general.

His wiki also states that he had some very racist and unfriendly things to say about Tiger Woods. He's not trying to get that taken out, oh no. He wants references to drug use taken out.

The difference is that he actually did say those things about Tiger Woods. He eventually apologized, publicly. I'm sure he wishes he could get a do-over for all-that, but he can't. But the references to drug use and wife-beating are (he says) untrue, so he's understandably upset. If it were me I'd be upset about the wife-beating accusations (if I had a wife), though I couldn't really care less about the drugs and alcohol.